To clarify these creative possibilities, we would have to have a group
of physicists who are willing to take on a deep Jungian analysis--not because we want to
rule them or influence them--simply that they learn. And then we would have to have a few
Jungian analysts who would take the trouble to study physics. I think that's what first
would have to be done, so that both knew really deeply the other subject.

Marie-Louise von Franz (von Franz 1992, p. 162)

I. Introduction

Unfortunately, we have not fully embodied the ideal suggested by von
Franz in the opening quotation. Nevertheless, we have moved in the direction she proposes.
Our discussion of the therapeutic interaction results from the shared attempt of a senior
Jungian analyst (JMS) and a physicist (VM) to understand the reciprocal action between
analyst and analysand engaged in what we describe below as "mutual process," and
"interactive field." Both the observed psychological phenomenology and the
physics of fields inspire our understanding. Although our suggestions for evolving the
therapeutic interaction toward mutual process are natural outgrowths of classical Jungian
theory and practice, the interaction we describe involves richer possibilities than are
usually reported about the therapeutic encounter.

As we will show, the attention to awakened bodily reactions and subtle
body energies in both the analysand and analyst, during sessions, and the use of joint
active imagination, raise fundamental questions about the relation of psyche to soma and
analyst to analysand. Ideas from the physics of fields are particularly well-suited for
understanding the phenomena and moving toward answers to some fundamental questions posed.

We fully appreciate the difficulty of bringing ideas from physics to
bear upon the complexities embodied in the therapeutic relationship. In healing the wounds
of the soul we first build an hermetic vessel, the vas hermeticum, out of trust,
honesty, compassion, and openness. Within this vessel is expressed the connectedness of
Eros--between the analyst and the analysand and between them and the larger, encompassing
source of healing. Perhaps ideas from physics can increase our understanding of the
therapeutic relationship without violating this inter-subjective mystery. We first discuss
the notions of mutual process and interactive field by placing them in the historical
evolution of the therapeutic encounter.

II. Four Levels of Therapy

Early is his development of psychoanalysis, Freud became acutely aware
of the impact of the patient's projections upon the analyst. He attempted to elicit these
projections and use them to illuminate the infantile fantasies from the unconscious, and
yet mitigate their impact upon the analyst. He called this process the working through of
the transference. On the analyst's side, objectivity and detachment were the bywords, with
asymmetry of connection the desideratum. In his "Postscript to the Question of lay
analysis" Freud (Freud 1927, p. 257) says:

For it is not greatly to the advantage of patients if their physician's
therapeutic interest has too marked an emotional emphasis. They are best helped if he
carries out his task coolly and keeping as closely as possible to the rules.

Over the century, however, psychoanalytic circles generally recognized
that the mutual impact of analyst and analysand was not only unavoidable but was useful in
the healing process. This recognition produced such concepts as projective identification
and the active embracing of counter-transference reactions to understand what was going on
in the patient. This has been especially true in Kleinian and Object-Relations work.

It was Jung who soon realized that not only is mutual transference a
critical part of the work, but that the analyst's effect on the analysand is proportional
to that of the latter upon him or herself. As Jung says (Jung 1954a, p. 71):

For, twist and turn the matter as we may, the relation between doctor
and patient remains a personal one within the impersonal framework of the professional
treatment. By no device can the treatment be anything but the product of mutual influence,
in which the whole being of the doctor, as well as that of his patient plays its part. . .
. . For two personalities to meet is like mixing two different substances: if there is any
combination at all, both are transformed.

This realization of "mutual influence" and that "both are
transformed" raised the question of whether the therapeutic relation should really be
asymmetrical. C. A. Meier, in a seminal paper (Meier 1959), advanced the hypothesis that
the analysis became symmetrical when the analyst learned ever more about the partner,
thereby advancing the "cut" of consciousness into the "analytic
object." With this increasing knowledge and intimacy it was no longer possible to
assess to whom a transference content "belonged." In truth, the analyst and
analysand jointly constellated a "third," and this was the collective
unconscious itself, its archetypal contents transcending those of the personal mother,
father, etc.

Following upon Jung's and Meier's formulations, Spiegelman, in a series
of papers beginning with a contribution to Meier's Festschrift in 1965, has been advancing
an understanding of what he came to call mutual process (Spiegelman 1965, 1980, 1991,
1995). Parallel with this development, the concept of the interactive field has been
adumbrated, particularly by Schwartz-Salant (Schwartz-Salant 1988, 1992), although the
original use of the field in connection with the collective unconscious was suggested by
von Franz (von Franz 1980, p. 80). The mutuality of the process refers to both analyst and
analysand jointly and simultaneously engaging the unconscious activated through their
interaction.

The two concepts of mutual process and interactive field are not
synonymous, but tend to be interrelated. As we will show, the more mutual the process, the
more the interactive field manifests. Spiegelman (Spiegelman 1993, pp. 205-208),
classified the degree to which mutual process occurs in four categories of increasing
consciousness of mutuality in the relation to the unconscious and thus increasing
expressions of the interactive field. We briefly summarize that classification here.

The first category is that of traditional analysis, the type von Franz
described (when she supervised JMS) as "womb analysis." In this situation, the
analysis is like a cave or womb, a vessel in which the analysand can safely explore and
relate to the unconscious, while the analyst provides a protective and supportive
environment for it. Much classical psychoanalysis is of this nature. A Jungian case
example (by JMS, supervised by von Franz), is of a doctoral student at the University of
Zürich, who actually painted such a picture at the outset of his analysis. He continued
to paint and draw his own process under the caring and watchful eye of the budding analyst
who hardly spoke the German language in which the work was done! Nevertheless, this
maternal container contributed mightily to the therapeutic effect.

Another example, in the United States, was that of a creative writer
with considerable previous analysis who used the analytic hour to work, almost by himself,
with associations to dreams and active imagination. The analyst's task was largely to
provide comments on dreams, only occasionally remarking about what was happening in their
relationship. Although the relation was essentially asymmetrical and traditional, an
occasional image sustained the transference--a giant lingam of light between the two
partners. In this situation, little or no mutual process occurred, yet an interactive
field condition did occasionally arise.

By interactive field condition we mean the two parties are embedded in
an imaginally perceived whole situation. They experience the unconscious or archetypes
both "around" and "between" them, as well as "within"
them--an encompassing, infusing, and mutually interactive field. This occurs when the
collective unconscious is activated or, as the word is sometimes used,
"constellated," in the therapeutic interaction. We do not use the term
interactive field for the relation of one person with the unconscious, but reserve it for
describing the interaction two or more persons simultaneously have with the collective
unconscious. Fields can certainly be constellated when one is alone, e. g. active
imagination or in connection with nature and numinous objects, but this requires a
separate discussion.

The second category, "womb-interaction," shows more conscious
attention to the relationship. This is the mode frequently experienced by those who focus
upon projective identification, projection, and the interpreting of dreams, behavior,
psychodynamics, and the transference seen in the traditional sense. In short, it is the
general activity engaged in by analysts of most persuasions when emphasizing
transference-counter transference reactions. Examples from case studies routinely occur in
the journals of the respective schools.

The third category, that of mutual process proper, has a variety of
conditions and examples, characterized by frequent and sometimes intense reference to what
is happening in the analytic relationship. This can be the typical parent-child situation
or other archetypal relation, like those depicted in Jung's diagram, in his
"Psychology of the Transference" (Jung 1954b), in which analyst and analysand
are "accompanied," by anima and animus or other archetypal figures arising from
the unconscious. As we discuss below, these figures have their own relationship to both
parties. Generally, in this kind of mutual process there is an active consideration and
verbalization of what is happening, sometimes from moment to moment. This form of
interaction sometimes develops into joint active imagination. The distinguishing feature
of this type of interaction is the mutuality between partners. The "third," as
the unconscious shared between them, is constellated and the mercurial play of the
opposites is simultaneously experienced in the relationship and made conscious. The
alchemical model developed in Jung's (Jung 1954b) interpretation of the transference is
the prototype. More recent followers have gone further by verbalizing and articulating
such process with the analysand while they occur. "Womb-interaction is probably the
mode experienced frequently by those focusing upon projective identification.

The fourth category includes all of the regular mutual process
conditions, sketched above, and often includes bodily experiences in the head, chest,
diaphragm, etc., including subtle body energies suggesting the various chakras or sephiroth.
In addition, one often experiences acausal synchronistic events in such encounters and
exchanges. For example, a former priest suffered for some years from serious depression
and anxiety not alleviated in a previous analysis. After many months of work and little
positive results, despite interesting dreams that referred back to his initial vocation
and loss of connection with the divine, JMS revealed to him a fantasy he had during the
previous few sessions. This involved the image of analyst and analysand praying together
before a Dürer print in the room, of Christ Crowned with Thorns (hung between a brilliant
painting of Hassidim dancing and another of a magician with doves). The patient
immediately wanted to do this concretely and both partners knelt and prayed. As they knelt
there, shoulder to shoulder, JMS felt a Christlike presence, with an arm on each of their
shoulders. When he reported this to the patient, the latter responded, amazed, that he had
felt this, too. JMS then had the strong impression that the analysand was much larger than
himself, although they were physically about the same size. He reported this too. The
analysand, having the same impression, knelt lower, feeling he was inflated, whereupon JMS
exclaimed, "No! Not at all!" The analysand, after all, was truly much larger
than the analyst within a Christian manifestation of the divine and it was exactly right
that he acknowledge this. The analysand then wept with joy and the depression lifted.
Henceforth, the analysand gradually reconnected with his inner priestly vocation, via a
series of remarkable dreams. In this joint prayer experience both mutuality and an
interactive field condition occurred along with some subtle body experiences, but this
concatenation did not continue for most of the later sessions, in which asymmetry
returned.

All these varieties of mutual process can change back and forth, from
one category to another. There is usually a period of intense "womb" work,
accompanied or followed by an important realization and transformation in an interactive
field-condition, and then a reversion to slow, traditional work, with dreams, fantasies,
etc., leading to another striking appearance of the collective unconscious. In other
words, there is the work "within," which the analysand does either at home or in
the office, with the analyst as participant observer, and then they constellate an
archetypal connection--an interactive field--in which the collective unconscious is now
"between" the two partners, or encompassing them.

These four categories of increasing mutuality correlate to the
increasing perception of the interactive field condition in the analytic encounter, but
interactive fields play different roles in each category. The first type, that of the womb
analysis, may also include a powerful, but unspoken, experience of the interactive field
of the Mother-child archetype, in which both are embedded, even with experience of
subtle-body energies, but they usually neither remark upon this fact nor work on it. It
may actually be occurring in the unconscious without the parties registering it at all,
until much later or never.

Indeed, this less explicit use of the field idea occurs in Jung and
traditional work with the transference. The patient's projective contents affect the
analyst but he works on them quietly, by himself. Through working on his unexpressed
counter-transference the analyst helps the patient toward healing. As Meier points out,
since therapy is a totalistic system, the analyst's capacity to sustain and integrate the
difficult content himself induces a change in the system and thereby helps the patient.
The unspoken metaphor for this comes from the frequently referred to story by Richard
Wilhelm, who experienced a Rainmaker in a Chinese village who "brought rain,"
not by any magic or incantations, but just by meditating within the disturbed and
inharmonious conditions of the village. When he managed to recover his own harmony, was in
Tao, then, as he said, "Naturally, it rained." (For discussion of the Rainmaker
Model see (Spiegelman 1980)).

The Rainmaker model, we think, is used by Meier and often embraced by
Jung. It is also close to the traditional method favored in the original psychoanalytic
circles, tempered in the Jungian domain by attention to the numinous or the religious
attitude toward contents of the collective unconscious. We connect this method with the
introverted condition of focusing upon an inner relationship to the unconscious. Since it
is not explicitly an interaction between two persons mediated by the collective
unconscious, this is not the interactive field we are stressing here.

Later psychoanalysis and those therapies functioning in extroverted
countries such as the United States, required more overt attention to the transference, so
they discussed the interactions in light of the patient's dynamics. Such a shift in
focus--from an exclusively inward relationship to the unconscious to a shared
relationship--is also in accord with the attitude of finding the central value in
relationship itself, a view traditionally connected with women, or at least the archetypal
feminine. Is this a sign of the shift in consciousness from the masculine or patriarchal
values in ascendance, to those in which we equally attend to the matriarchal or feminine
values? Recall the admonition, in early Christianity, that the divine, or Jesus, is
present when "two or three gather in My name." A Protestant minister once said
that this number of two or three was the maximum, in his experience, where Jesus might
have a chance of appearing!

We suggest it is useful to add to the Rainmaker Model (always necessary
in any deep analytic work) a second one we call the mutual process or alchemical model, in
which we consciously and frequently address the interactions between analyst and
analysand. We reserve the term of full mutual process for type four. JMS describes mutual
process of types three and four as one in which he is carefully attentive during an
analytic session to what is happening, both "within" and "among." The
goal is to stay simultaneously attuned with his "left hand" to the unconscious
and with his "right hand" to "minding the store"--maintaining the
parenting aspect and containing boundaries for the work (Spiegelman 1988), and using
Kabbalistic imagery in the play of the opposites (Spiegelman 1995).

With such dual attention, there generally emerges the phenomenology many
analysts address in various ways and understand as projection or projective
identification. Many analysts have noted how the analytic work effects their energy--from
the loss of energy in boredom, to depression, excitement, etc. Others, going further, use
this energy experience as an indication of the projections going on (projective
identification), with its causal explanatory model ("He put his rage into me . . .
"etc.) It might be more parsimonious, as we hope to show, to consider these
interactions as ever-deeper manifestations of an interactive field. What such energy is
and how it plays out in the work needs to be investigated.

Before considering the nature and function of the energy exchanges going
on in the work, it is useful to take up the issues of the imaginal and bodily expressions
of the unconscious. As Schwartz-Salant has usefully pointed out (Schwartz-Salant 1989, Ch.
V), Jung made early use of the related concepts of Psychic Unconscious and Somatic
Unconscious (Jung 1934-39).

Jung's (Jung 1978c) articulated his "psychological standpoint"
that admits the primacy of the psyche. However, as Jung goes to great lengths to show in
"On the Nature of the Psyche," the psyche is bounded on one end of the spectrum
by inscrutable matter and at the other end by a transcendental mental principle, spirit,
which is equally unknowable (Jung 1978a, pp. 207-216). In analytic work we are
continuously oscillating between the archetypal realm of meaning on one hand and the
bodily sensations and responses to our work on the other. Each class of experience
expresses the Psychic Unconscious and the Somatic Unconscious respectively, fully
realizing along with Jung that there is "nothing that is directly experienced except
the mind itself." (Jung 1978c, p. 327)

The Psychic Unconscious expresses itself in those images and fantasies
that originate in the unconscious. The Somatic Unconscious, however, expresses itself in
those sensations and experiences arising from the body. These bodily or somatic symptoms
are other than those occurring from normal bodily activity, but have a link to emotional
conditions. Common examples are headaches, palpitations, stomach aches, etc. As we know,
the emotions, via the autonomic nervous system, are central in linking psyche and soma. We
believe it is useful to consider these two types of unconscious as expressions of Jung's
idea of the continuum and interaction between spirit and matter, soul and body, with the
descent from the ultraviolet end of the spectrum to the infrared (Jung 1978a). The
ultraviolet links psyche with the spiritual aspect of the instinct (archetypal images)
while the infrared links psyche with bodily expressions of instinct and matter. Image and
bodily experience are thus linked together and yet separate, as we find in analytic work.

It might also be useful to consider the analytic experience of bodily
energies being activated, the symptoms that occur in sessions (Spiegelman 1991), as a
manifestation of the Somatic Unconscious. Experience of working with the transference in
the mutual process manner results in both kinds of effects, somatic and imaginal.
Schwartz-Salant (Schwartz-Salant 1989), has been especially articulate in describing this
kind of work, invoking the alchemical formula of Maria Prophetissa, among others, and
noting that the image of the couple is frequently manifested. Whether we remain with a
generalized "third" appearing in the work (the unconscious itself
"belonging" to both parties), or differentiate this into a couple, an
interactive field clearly manifests. The participants simultaneously experience the
interactive field within themselves, or as between them, or as an inner occurrence.

Reflection suggests that the interplay of psychic and somatic is just
what the work toward union and totality entails. Mind and body, image and behavior, within
and among, are all aspects of the opposites that the participants engage in, as a kind of
alchemical sibling pair--Mercurius, as Jung spoke of it. They also frequently experience
the subtle body here. The understanding of the subtle-body as a manifestation of the
somatic unconscious (as is seen by Schwartz-Salant), or as a union of unconscious with
consciousness (as seen by JMS) is less important than the realization that the work
involves such processes. Consequently, those apparently mysterious events--often felt as
telepathic by some analysts--occur when the analyst, for example, registers the headache
or anxiety felt by the patient before the latter has said anything about it. As we suggest
below, rather than considering these as causal telepathic phenomena it may be better to
understand them as acausal instantiations of meaning--as synchronistic.

Spiegelman (Spiegelman 1995) also calls attention to the subtle-body
energies awakened in deep analytic work. They clearly connect with the kinds of
experiences reported in kundalini meditation, in Kabbalistic work with energies,
and in the experience of the energy called "orgone" by Wilhelm Reich in the
deeper body therapies. These energies are not merely the expression of normal bodily
functions, but occur after significant kinds of spiritual and bodily work and in the
relaxation period following them. Perhaps, as Reich had hoped, a redefinition of libido
may ultimately be possible. It is less certain whether this can be a fully biological
concept, as he believed, or whether it is one indirectly connected with bios, and
partaking of the latter when infused with psychic components.

Along with these conscious/unconscious questions, come the role of
causality and acausality in these processes. Ideas of projective identification use causal
explanations, whereas synchronistic experiences are acausal. Obviously both processes are
at work, but at which level and in which way are not yet clear. With these questions in
mind we turn to the findings of physics, which may further our understanding of these
psychological problems.

III. Characterizing Levels One and Two with Classical Fields

1. Classical Fields in Physics

In the early fifteenth century, René Descartes and others developed the
mechanical model of the physical universe that consisted of impartible atoms racing around
in the void. In this view all forces were contact forces caused by particle collisions. It
seemed natural to believe that, as in our normal sensory experience, objects must touch to
exert force on each other. In the late seventeenth century, Isaac Newton's formulation of
the gravitation interaction caused serious conceptual problems for this mechanical view of
nature. Although there was no disputing the power, elegance, and accuracy of his
formulation, it was nearly impossible to understand gravity as a contact force. Gravity
seemed to work through a pure vacuum, a real action-at-a-distance, an idea utterly
repellent to such thinkers of that era as Bishop George Berkeley and many others.

Fortunately, by the nineteenth century the notion of a field became the
preferred way of understanding such interactions as gravity and electromagnetism. In this
view, rather than the sun and earth gravitationally interacting through empty space, we
understand that the sun generates a field, an actual modification of the space surrounding
the sun. This modification of space, this field, contains energy and exerts forces on
bodies like the planets or asteroids placed in it. The conceptually vexing notion of
action-at-a-distance is replaced by the field--an invisible entity mediating the force
between the sun and earth. The earth "senses" the field only in its immediate
vicinity and responds to that. Simultaneously, the earth generates its field to which the
sun responds. There is no more action-at-a-distance, but there is mutual interaction
through the field. Or take an electromagnetic example. A pair of protons generate electric
fields around themselves that mediate their mutual repulsion. An individual proton only
responds to the electric field in its immediate vicinity.

Modern physics now considers classical fields as critically important
models for understanding nature. Although the fields are not visible, they can be easily
represented in visual diagrams. They are substantial, since fields carry energy and
momentum and have measurable effects. Despite their invisibility, fields have become as
real and substantial, with the same ontic status, as the particles they effect. In other
words, classical particles and fields are equally substantial and real entities existing
in spacetime.

Even at this uncomplicated level, classical fields are appropriate
metaphors for the action of the unconscious on consciousness. Take, for example, the
gravitational field. It is invisible, pervades all space, and is always effective, even if
we are not actively aware of it. Our physical presence also has an influence on the earth.
Similarly the unconscious is invisible, pervasive, and continuously influencing
consciousness, even without our knowledge of the process. In turn, our conscious position
effects the unconscious. As we will see, well beyond this minor application, the field
concept has descriptive power in delineating the interaction of the unconscious with
consciousness.

All classical fields are causal, local, and based upon the idea of
independent existence. By causal we mean that the field always interacts in a completely
predictable way when the same body is placed in it in the same way. Identical initial
conditions always give rise to the same interaction and subsequent system evolution. For
example, if you repeatedly place an object with a given velocity and position in the same
gravitational field, the identical orbit always results. Local means that any changes in
the field or the system it characterizes must propagate at less than or equal to the speed
of light. For example, if a giant cosmic hand suddenly plucked the sun from the sky, the
gravitational field at the earth's location would not reflect this change for
approximately eight minutes--the time it takes for light to travel from the sun to the
earth. All classical physics is based on the assumption that the interacting particles and
fields are independently existent, that is they have an autonomy, separateness, or an
inherent existence that is fundamentally free from interactions and conditions. For
example, we may conceptually remove a particle from the interacting field and consider
either the particle or the field independently. In other words, the relations are
much less real or fundamental than the independent existence or autonomy of
classical objects.

2. Conditions for Classical Field-Like Phenomena in Levels One and
Two

In Jungian analysis there is usually an initial period of reductive
analysis, in which present problems or psychodynamics are reduced to past psychological
experience. Although all four levels of therapy discussed above may employ reductive
analysis, our emphasis here is its use in levels one and two. For a too simple example:
one's anger toward those in authority is caused by father's harsh treatment in childhood.
The beginning of dealing with this problem is often a reductive delineation, an
articulation of the anger and its causes. Although this analysis makes reference to the
unconscious, at this stage the analysis is largely causal--a particular complex is
understood to invariably cause a certain emotional reaction.

================ Figure 1 =================

To clarify this point refer to Figure 1, which is a slight
generalization of the famous four-fold diagram Jung developed in his essay "The
Psychology of the Transference." The major difference between our diagram and Jung's
is that we have removed gender references. To continue our simplistic example: the analyst
explores the analysand's relationship with his father. This two way conscious interaction
is represented by the double-headed arrow (a). The questioning activates the analysand's
personal unconscious and he is overtaken by feelings of anger and shame--represented by
the double-headed arrow (c). The analysand unconsciously projects aspects of the father
complex on the analyst--double-headed arrow (d). The analyst becomes aware of intuitions
about the analysand by accessing his unconscious--arrow (b). The analyst may also project
something like ungrateful son on the analysand--arrow (f). Finally, there may be some
unconscious participation mystique between analyst and patient indicated by (e).

Of course, all these interactions are extremely difficult to disentangle
in practice, since as Jung pointed out they are simultaneously present. Nevertheless,
there are times when it is clear that the interaction is dominated by one or a few of
these modes. For our present purposes we have stressed the causal nature of the
interaction. For example, the analyst questioning the analysand, arrow (a), causes the
analysand to ponder his relationship with his father, which in turn causes the analysand
to contact his father complex, arrow (c), which in turn causes the analysand's anger,
projection on the analyst, and so on.

A more subtle underlying assumption here than causality is that the
analyst, analysand, and the complexes are all relatively autonomous or independently
existent. The analyst has a personality distinct and independent from that of the
analysand. The analysand's ego can be considered independently from his complexes, from
the analyst, and so forth. Of course, the assumption of separateness or independent
existence in this reductive-rational-causal method is thrown into question if there is a
significant participation mystique interaction, arrow (e).

Although our example is necessarily too simple, it is well known that
such reductive analysis can be extremely effective and is often taken up again at even
advanced stages of the individuation process. Nevertheless, its primary locus of operation
is the personal unconscious, although there is never an absolutely clear demarcation
between purely personal material and more archetypal contents.

3. Classical Field-Like Phenomena in Levels One and Two

Let us continue the example of the father complex and first focus on the
bodily phenomenology of the interactions. Soon after the analyst begins questioning the
analysand about his relationship to his father the analyst notices the analysand's face
flushing or twitching. The analyst may bring this fact to the analysand's attention.
Although this "mirroring" is done on the conscious level along arrow (a), it
serves in part to connect the analysand to his inner world along arrow (c). A more
unconscious example of mirroring can occur along the following lines. The analyst senses
tension between his own shoulder blades and is reasonably sure, because of his familiarity
with his own unconscious and awareness of how this interaction is affecting him along
arrow (b), that it is not merely his own complexes being activated. Let's assume that this
awareness of tension came through some combination of unconscious channels (d) and (e).
The analyst then tells the analysand about the tension he feels between his shoulder
blades. In our ideal example, the analysand realizes that he experiences this same tension
when he gets into some power struggle with an authority. The analysand thereby increases
his awareness of the functioning of channels (c) and (d). It may also turn out that the
analyst then becomes aware of how he is projecting his disappointments and frustrations
about his own son on the analysand--his reactions were not so pure after all. Then in the
spirit of mutual process, the analyst may openly share this with the analysand and their
mutual understanding of each other and themselves deepens.

Although the example is contrived, we hope it suggests how reductive
analysis emphasizes consciousness, the personal unconscious, and how they causally affect
both parties. Consistent with the needs of the analysand, the analyst may share his inner
responses, limitations, and embarrassments, whether they are bodily symptoms or feelings.
This is done even if such admissions are at the expense of the usual idea of the analyst
as all-knowing healer--a projection of no lasting value. Naturally, such self-disclosure
by the analyst is not a routine matter. What is usefully disclosed in analyst-analysand
interactions are the experiences of the analyst in relation to the patient, which can then
be of use to the latter, at least as indicating impact (See Spiegelman 1988, 1991, 1993).

Many persons working in depth psychology use the term,
"field," in a variety of ways to characterize powerful interactions between the
analyst and analysand. However, there is little agreement on what, if anything, the term
actually means. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a widely current intuition that some
notion of field genuinely characterizes this type of interaction. We conjecture that when
persons powerfully interact in the therapeutic mode as sketched above, then we become
aware of the unconscious acting like a classical field--invisible, pervasive, containing,
causal, and mutually effective. Naturally, since the unconscious transcends the categories
of space and time, it is not sitting out in space like the gravitational field of the
earth waiting for the perceptive analyst to sense it. It may be closer to say that we are
constellating, instantiating, or concretizing the unconscious and it is experienced as a
classical field. On the other hand, one could easily argue that the field is merely a
convenient way of symbolizing powerful therapeutic interactions and that we should not
literalize this experience by postulating a mediating physical field. At this stage this
is a viable argument. We return to this important point toward the end of this paper.

Next we move on to discuss even more dramatic and controversial
suggestions about the therapeutic interaction. This type of interaction requires that we
employ some ideas from quantum fields which we now briefly sketch.

IV. Characterizing Mutual Process with Quantum Fields

1. Quantum Fields in Physics

The advent of quantum mechanics in the late 1920's not only
revolutionized physics, but it greatly expanded our notion of fields. Now we understand
quantum fields as not existing physically in spacetime the way a classical gravitational
or electromagnetic field does. Instead, quantum fields are potentials for
manifestations in spacetime, which are not directly measurable. Such nonspatial and
nontemporal quantum fields provide us with probabilities for particles manifesting in
spacetime. Although quantum fields share many mathematical properties with classical
fields they are of a much more abstract order of being, especially because, unlike
classical fields, they are neither in spacetime nor directly measurable.

Probability occurs in quantum mechanics at a new and fundamental level,
which many, such as Einstein, find deeply disturbing. There had long been probabilistic
theories in physics before the advent of quantum mechanics. For example, in the classical
analysis of an ideal gas, one of the early successes of thermodynamics, we concentrate
upon the probability distribution for different particle velocities. It is not that the
individual gas particles do not have definite positions and velocities, it is just that we
do not have access to that level of detail. Rather, we only have statistical information
about the distribution of velocities from which we deduce the properties of ideal gases.
Here probability is an expression of our ignorance of the details.

In contrast, in quantum mechanics probability is introduced at a much
more fundamental level. The quantum particles simply do not have definite positions and
velocities and probability statements are all that we can make. It is not that we are
ignorant of the details, but that there are no details. At this level nature is inherently
indeterminate and probability is an expression of its true indeterminate being. In other
words, quantum probability expresses the ontic indeterminacy of physical systems, not
our ignorance of the fine details.

Because of this fundamental indeterminacy nature is acausal--there is no
well-defined cause or causes for a particular event. For example, there is no particular
cause for the decay of given radioactive nuclei. Although nature clearly reveals
enormously varied and rich structures, there are no well-defined causes for individual
occurrences at the quantum level.

Without a doubt, this introduction of acausality at such a fundamental
level is an enormous shift in intellectual history. According to quantum theory, the most
successful theory in history, we must now abandon our servitude to strict causality, the
idea that all events have some well-defined set of causes and that the same initial
conditions always generate the same effects. Now we must learn to appreciate that although
nature is structured and lawful, it is acausal--the same initial conditions do not always
generate the same effects. There are no well-defined causes for individual quantum events.
This discovery inspired Jung when he learned about it through his long friendship with
Wolfgang Pauli. It provided intellectual support for the introduction of his idea of
synchronicity as acausal connection through meaning of inner psychic states with outer
events. Jung repeatedly stressed that the inner psychic state (for example, the famous
dream of the scarab beetle) does not cause the outer material event (the beetle flying
through the window) nor vice versa. He wanted to supplement the notion of causality, so
familiar from ordinary thought and classical physics, with the acausal principle of
synchronicity, similar to the way acausality in quantum mechanics supplements causality in
classical physics.

So quantum fields are invisible, nonspatial, nontemporal, probabilities
for acausal manifestation. They therefore share many characteristics with archetypes. For
example, in his synchronicity essay Jung advises us to resist the temptation to see the
archetypes as causative agents in synchronicity. He says, "The archetype represents psychic
probability, . . . ." (Italics are Jung's (Jung 1978b, p. 515). Although the
archetype provides the fundamental meaning or intellectual structure for a synchronistic
event, it is not causative of either the inner or outer correlated events.

More puzzling to the classical physicist--who lives in the heart of even
the best quantum physicists like an inferior function or dark brother--than the acausal
nature of quantum fields is its nonlocal nature. This property has been dramatically and
convincingly revealed in the Bell Inequality experiments of the last two decades. We have
previously discussed the implications of nonlocality in quantum mechanics for
understanding synchronicity (Mansfield and Spiegelman 1989). Here it suffices to describe
briefly the idea of nonlocality.

Nonlocality is the inability to localize a system in a given region of
space and time. Stated positively, there are well-studied physical systems that show
instantaneous interconnections or correlations among their parts--true instantaneous
action-at-a-distance. For example, consider two widely separated regions, A and B, shown
in Figure 2. In nonlocal phenomena what happens in region A instantaneously influences
what occurs in region B and vice versa. Surprisingly, this instantaneous interaction or
dependency occurs without any information or energy exchange between regions A and B.
The effect occurs without a definite cause--a truly acausal connection. For this reason
alone, we cannot use nonlocality to develop a faster than light signaling scheme.
Nevertheless, the effects are strong and do not weaken with the distance between regions A
and B. This degree of interdependence between separate parts of a system has no
counterpart in classical physics. Nevertheless, nonlocality has been clearly revealed in
experiments that are independent of the present formulation of quantum mechanics. This
means that any future theory of nature must embody this principle.

================== Figure 2 ====================

Our implicit belief in the independent existence of events in regions A
and B greatly contributes to the sense of mystery in nonlocality. We unconsciously cling
to the idea that the events in the two regions really are fundamentally separate and
independent from each other. This false belief in their mutually independent existence
then gives rise to the demand that we understand this interconnectedness in terms of
effects propagating faster than the speed of light. Relativity physics, however, rules out
such propagation. Instead, the view we have come to appreciate in the last two decades is
that nonlocal quantum fields are expressing a profound level of mutual interconnectedness
and interdependence, a level impossible to understand if we cling to the old notion of
independently existent objects causally inter-acting. In other words, classical, local
fields cannot account for quantum interdependence. The assimilation of this revolutionary
idea into collective consciousness will take time and without doubt have extraordinarily
far-reaching consequences.

Most people who study the philosophic foundations of quantum mechanics
agree that nonlocality is more mysterious than the dependency of system properties on the
act of observation--illustrated in the famous wave-particle complementarity. They reason
that in any measurement there must be some interaction with the system measured. In
classical physics, because the systems are macroscopic, this interaction can be neglected.
For example, when we precisely measure the Moon's distance from the Earth by timing how
long a radar signal takes to be reflected from its surface, the reflected signal does not
change the Moon's orbit. In contrast, quantum mechanical measurements involve energy
exchanges comparable to the energy of the object measured. Because of these significant
energy exchanges, measurement takes on a much more central role in quantum mechanics.

Depth psychology faces a similar "measurement" problem. In
investigating unconscious contents, we inevitably transform them in the process. To expose
a previously unconscious projection, for example, is to transform radically the thing
known, a process central to individuation.

Let us summarize this subsection on quantum fields. They are invisible,
nonspatial, nontemporal potentials or probabilities for manifestation. The processes
governed by them are acausal in that they lack definite causes for particular events.
Finally, the quantum fields are nonlocal and thereby express the deep interconnectedness
and mutual interdependence of quantum systems--a kind of interconnectedness that defies a
classical characterization in terms of independently existent parts connected by faster
than light signals or forces.

2. Conditions for Quantum Field-Like Phenomena in Levels Three and
Four

Quantum field-like phenomena in analysis evolve out of a deeper and more
intense interaction than that described when we were discussing classical fields. The
relationship between analyst and analysand and between the pair and the objective psyche
are now more intimate, more mutual. We have moved to levels three and four discussed
above. Eros is working his magic in drawing the analyst and the analysand together and
toward the root of their own being. Here the growth and healing often born out of
affliction and sustained by suffering becomes a voyage of discovery of the numinous
archetypes of the collective unconscious. This relationship produces a diminishing of the
sense of separateness and independence between the analyst and analysand. Through the
therapeutic process they are now mutually connected to the objective psyche. Now, rather
than causal interactions there are, as we discuss below, acausal expressions of meaning.
Simultaneously there are expressions of the somatic unconscious and a variety of
subtle-body experiences.

======================= Figure 3
=========================

Figure 3 tries to embody these ideas by modifying our Figure 1. Here two
interpenetrating cones show that the conscious aspect of an individual, the ego-persona,
rests on a much larger base of the personal and collective unconscious. The cone structure
shows that consciousness is always influenced by and influencing the unconscious. The
horizontal double-headed arrow depicts the conscious interaction. The diagonal
double-headed arrows depict the transference, counter-transference, and projective
identification discussed above. In Figure 3 the unconscious of the analyst is in direct
contact with the unconscious of the analysand (participation mystique) because the
two cones overlap both in the personal and collective unconscious. (Obviously, the clean
demarcation between the layers of the psyche is a diagrammatic illusion, since there is no
clear boundary between, for example, the personal and collective unconscious.) What is
perhaps most significant in the figure is the explicit reference to the infusion of
archetypes into the relationship. In other words, when the therapeutic relationship become
sufficiently deep, when we are profoundly and mutually immersed in the field, then we have
prepared the conditions for direct mutual influence by the gods.

3. Quantum Field-Like Phenomena in Mutual Process

Here we attempt to describe some of the mutual process phenomenology in
levels three and four by employing ideas from quantum field theory. Just as in physics, we
are here faced with a genuine complementarity, but in the psychological case between
consciousness and the unconscious. If we wish to participate fully in the field, our sense
of separate identity along with its clearly focused ego-consciousness must greatly
diminish. If we operate solely rationally, then the field experience fades. To be fully in
the field requires an openness to fantasy, feelings, intuitions, sensations, and all the
products of the psyche that are blinded by the effulgence of rational consciousness. When
attending to the unconscious or affected by it, we frequently experience this
complementarity, this tension, between rationally understanding the process and immersing
ourselves in it.

When we feel we are truly "in the relational field," one that
touches both the psychic unconscious and somatic unconscious, with the latter definitely
activated, we note that the interaction has dropped into a deeper level, that there is a
qualitative shift to a more intimate connection. Often, the first manifestation of this
arousal of the somatic unconscious is a definite and characteristic tingling in the palms
of both hands. This is sometimes felt by the analyst and by the analysand at the same
time. Often, this stage is preceded by the analyst experiencing physical symptoms such as
stomach ache, headache, chest arousal, etc. When he or she notes this and asks the
analysand what is happening in the latter's psyche, they frequently respond that something
similar has happened or is happening. When the two are experiencing synchronization of
phenomena, the mobilization of mutual process, in interaction with the collective
unconscious, has taken place and the subtle body is aroused (see previous discussion). We
surmise that the field has been present all along, but it is this attention or activation
which has signaled its living presence.

Is the effect more than psychic? Are we hallucinating or inducing
hypnotic suggestion, where the analysand is merely pleasing the analyst? We think not,
since at least some of these field experiences are studied by other analysts
(Schwartz-Salant 1989). Our considered opinion is that the effect has a physiological
correlate and that the psyche is responding to something physical, an expression of the
somatic unconscious in consciousness. We now believe that tingling hands are one reliable
indicator of the presence of the field. Does this imply that the hands, richly supplied
with nerve endings, are actually sensing in some mysterious way a field like those studied
in physics? We cannot say for certain, however it is tempting to think this way.

Another possibility which we favor is that the subtle body, the psyche
functioning through its material substrate of organized energy patterns, is the organ of
perception of the field. Just as the psyche functioning through symbolic intuition is the
organ of perception of the archetypes, it may be that the subtle body, the psyche
conjoined with its physical-energic base, is the organ of perception of the field. This is
another way of saying, as we did in the introduction, that the psychic and somatic
unconscious are activated or constellated.

Beside the tingling in the palms of the hands, there is often a mutual
reflecting or mirroring of somatic symptoms. In addition, a genuine archetypal presence is
often experienced. The archetype seems to be present as a real third in the therapeutic
relationship. The experience of the archetypal presence, the third, comes in two distinct
but related ways: symbolically and through what we believe is the subtle body.

To expand on the symbolic mode, let's continue our simple example from
the previous section. At this level of the therapeutic interaction it now feels like the
archetypal father is present with the analyst and the analysand--actually attendant in the
consulting room. God the father stands alongside of or within the image of the personal
father. Under the best of conditions this becomes a numinous epiphany, a revelation of the
archetype in the healing process. Now authentic healing takes place. We are again reminded
of the saying in the New Testament, "When two or three of you are gathered in My
name, I will be present." The self seems to be presiding over the process through the
archetype. The field vibrates with power, emotion, and meaning.

Now there are more than intuitions that an archetype is present as the
guiding third, as the presiding deity. Joint active imagination shows its presence more
directly. When conditions seem appropriate, both analyst and analysand can elect the
option of closing their eyes, turning inward, and engaging in active imagination. After a
period of silence, which is broken by whichever person who cares to, they report their
fantasies and inner dialogues. Then it becomes clear that the archetype so palpably
present is simultaneously infusing both their fantasies and inner dialogues with
meaning--a meaning that deeply connects them through the archetype. There can be genuine
synchronicities between the irruptions of the psyche in both parties. The images are often
different, yet the archetype simultaneously infusing the analyst's images with meaning
provides an acausal bridge to the analysand's images. It appears that the joint active
imagination is separately going on in two individuals, but when the parties report the
imagery they find they are being simultaneously and acausally guided by an archetypal
presence.

The more physiological experience of the archetypal presence--the
perception through the subtle body--may begin with tingling in the palms. It is often
followed by energy perceptions in other parts of the body, especially in the various chakras
discussed in kundalini yoga. Often the experience will be simultaneous for both
parties. Sometimes it is reported by one and then later experienced by the other. No
doubt, there is always the possibility of suggestion, however, we believe that the
phenomena go beyond suggestion.

That both the somatic unconscious and psychic unconscious are activated
seems clear. How this becomes manifest in the therapeutic relationship depends upon the
participating parties. Schwartz-Salant, for example (Schwartz-Salant 1989), uses the image
of the couple as present in the relationship. This is drawn from the alchemical royal
brother/sister pair and serves as the valued fourth which resolves the dilemma of the
third versus the fourth in the famous Axiom of Maria Prophetissa. Schwartz-Salant also
points out that this presence of the image of four helps to avoid the dangerous and
potentially destructive effects of acting out the immensely powerful archetypal forces
activated.

JMS's experiences, in harmony with those of Meier and others, confirms
those reported by Schwartz-Salant. It seems the "third," as the archetypes of
the collective unconscious, is activated and, since most archetypes are relational (e.g.,
parent implies child, wise man implies pupil, king implies queen, aggression and sexuality
imply a partner), these usually manifest initially as a polarity in the relationship. The
analysand experiences the analyst as magician, for example, and themselves as apprentice
or victim. The opposites are strongly constellated but, with the analyst's consciousness
of this opposition, it is possible that both parties can arrive at a condition
transcending this opposition. These opposites often bounce back and forth, so to speak,
between the partners until each of them experiences both sides within himself/herself.
This is the desired equality and mutuality JMS has been trying to understand as far back
as 1965 (Spiegelman 1965). Equality derives from being equal before God, he noted then,
despite obvious inequality in every other way. We achieve this deep equality in the
analytic work when both partners find the opposites within themselves and find the Self
within and between them as the mediating condition. This gives an experience of both the
"God within" and "God among" and is usually accompanied by interactive
field phenomena.

We gave one example of this condition earlier, when JMS described his
experience with the former priest. Another is one had by VM and JMS when they were
planning this paper. They were seated under a tree in the latter's backyard discussing a
father-son and brother-brother constellation that had happened between them, following a
presentation of a dream by VM.

As they discussed fathering and being a son in each of their experiences
with their own fathers and sons, the subtle-body experience of each of them grew in
intensity. Besides this, VM began to experience the distinctive energy of the kundalini,
rising and descending within him. Then he heard a rustling in the tree above them and
spotted what looked like a dove (it might have been another bird) and called JMS's
attention to it. This was immediately thrilling to both and, naturally, recalled the
picture in the Rosarium Philosophorum, where the king and queen join hands while a
dove, a symbol of the holy spirit, is connecting with them from above. The energy
released, along with the father and son images between and among them, provided a strong
sense of bonding and brotherhood, as well as some healing of wounds that each of them had
experienced elsewhere in the father/son connection. The spirit, as father and son to them
both, was the uniting factor.

Incidentally, Jung notes that the Visio Arislei suggests that
unification of male with male is not productive. It seems to us, and especially to JMS in
many of his mutual process projects with others, that this is too pessimistic and such
unions, in brotherhood, are very possible. This male/male connection has produced several
"children" thus far, in the form of physics/depth psychology articles, as well
as co-authored books on Jungian psychology and various religions.

Let us now employ ideas from quantum fields to try to characterize this
interaction more fully. (In what follows we use the modifiers "classical" and
"quantum" when it is necessary to distinguish between the two types of fields,
otherwise our remarks apply to both types.) When using the idea of a field, we are
acknowledging that the unconscious or the archetypal presence is not a visible entity
localizable in a particular part of space. Rather, like a classical field, the invisible
presence seems more pervasive of space. However, deeper reflection argues for the idea
that the experience is actually of a principle that transcends our notion of spacetime and
that therefore it is more like a quantum mechanical field in this sense.

The meaningful correlations of the images produced in the joint active
imagination and the simultaneity of subtle body sensations argues for understanding the
experience as an acausal expression of meaning--more like synchronicity than a causal
influence of the analyst upon the analysand or vice versa. If we follow Jung and
understand that "the archetype represents psychic probability," then we
see that a quantum field description of the relational interaction mediated by an
archetype is more appropriate. Because the manifestation of meaning in the field is
acausal, many different images in the joint active imagination could incarnate the
archetypal meaning. The critical thing is the archetype incarnating simultaneously in both
the analyst and analysand, not what particular images carry it. Similarly, quantum fields
describe probability distributions for a range of possible manifestations all of which,
despite their diversity, are expression of the same field. In physics, the diverse
expressions of the quantum field certainly have a pattern and order and they obey
fundamental laws like conservation of mass-energy and momentum. Similarly, in joint active
imagination the manifestations of, say, the father archetype are diverse but easily
distinguished in most cases from the archetypal expressions of the anima, although both
may be present. They also obey certain structural laws of the psyche, such as what are the
dominant psychological functions of the individuals involved. While active imagination is
a significant exploratory tool in the mutual process exchange, it is far from the only
one. Joint active imagination gives us imaginal and symbolic access to the field while
the subtle body gives us sensory access to the field. Perhaps we can say that the two
organs of perception for the interactive field are symbolic imagination and the subtle
body.

One of the deep mysteries in this acausal field experience is the
awareness that the presiding archetype is simultaneously and meaningfully structuring the
individual psyches of both the analyst and the analysand. The temptation is to view this
as some form of causal thought transference, to see the process as an expression of a
causal classical field. However, the psychological experience is more like an acausal
expression of meaning. The images are not the same or even necessarily of a similar type
(for example, both of animals or mythological heroes), however the archetype organizing
and infusing them in both parties is the same. In this way, we have much more an
expression of acausal meaning, an instantiating of the archetype in both parties, without
a causal interaction either between the analyst and analysand or between the archetype and
the therapeutic partners. Because of our deep, and often unconscious, commitment to
causality, accepting the reality of an acausal connection is difficult for us. This is
true whether we are psychologists or physicists.

The quantum field seems like an appropriate explanatory vehicle because
of its nonlocal nature, because it implies a deep acausal interconnectedness, a profound
and mutual interdependency between apparently distinct parts of a system. Although the
analyst and analysand surely have (at the level of the upper parts of the cones in the
figure) a distinguishable and separable existence, at a deeper level (where the cones
interpenetrate) they are both expressions of the same objective psyche. Relationally
there is a deep interdependency since there is no being an analyst without having an
analysand and vice versa. Substantially there is deep interconnection because ultimately
we are all expressions of the same objective psyche. The nonlocality of quantum fields
trenchantly expresses all this, reminding us repeatedly, both theoretically and
experimentally, of the profound acausal interconnectedness of the universe, which depends
neither upon distance nor upon the transmission of forces or information at speeds greater
than that of light. From the psychological side, without the light of consciousness the
interdependency in the participation mystique may be negative. Schwartz-Salant
(Schwartz-Salant 1989) and others note this by "fusion states." However, if we
can bring consciousness into it then we have the true root of our healing, the balm of
Gilead.

Finally, we may consider that the four phases of mutual process can be
seen as similar to the development, in history, of the physics and psychology of causality
(Descartes and Freud), the initial realization of causal fields (Newton and Klein/Object
Relations), the relativized field (Einstein and Jung), followed by the quantum field in
both disciplines. We stress that this, of course, has nothing to do with better or worse,
but is merely descriptive of different levels of reality, which often operate
simultaneously.

V. Conclusions

We are fully aware that our efforts at discussing the relational field
raise at least as many questions as they answer. Perhaps the first question that comes to
mind is about the ontic status of the field. Is it a real, measurable field of the type
studied in physics or is it merely a fitting and powerful symbolic characterization of a
variety of phenomena experienced in deep mutual process? Schwartz-Salant prefers to
characterize this as the imaginal, and although this is certainly true and we are as
adamant about psychic reality as any other Jungian, the concept of matter and the somatic
unconscious, as well as the experience of the subtle-body suggests something more
encompassing. To help answer this question we are investigating the possibility of making
electrical skin resistance measurements (galvanic skin response) in the hands of both the
analyst and the analysand when in this condition. Although we favor the possibility of
finding physiological and material correlates for these experiences, von Franz (von Franz
1992, p. 2-4) thinks that galvanic skin responses are insufficient as indicators for such
complexes. We cannot at this stage definitely evaluate the ontic status of the field. We
hope that by raising these issues some useful discussion and clarification can result. If
in fact the field turns out to be physical as well as mental, then we must address a whole
host of problems surrounding the relation between psyche and matter. This is an exciting
prospect for a deeper interconnection between physics and depth psychology, just as Jung
and Pauli desired.

There are also practical problems. For example, for what type of
analysts and analysands is mutual process appropriate and desirable? If it is desirable,
at what stage in therapy do we employ it or, more likely, does it occur of itself? How do
such individual differences such as the dominant psychological type affect the phenomena?
If mutual process is as truly mutual as we believe it should and could be then it
challenges some of our most precious beliefs about the appropriate relations between
analyst and analysand.

Summary

An analyst and physicists combine their disciplines in studying the
transference as an interactive field. Through a description of the history and evolution
of the therapeutic relationship as one moving from asymmetry to symmetry, from reductive
causal interaction to acausal, synchronistic expression of meaning, we describe four
levels of interaction.

To unpack the notion of interactive field we describe the physics of
local, causal, classical fields and directly connect them to the therapeutic encounter of
the first two levels. The second two levels require discussion of nonlocal, acausal,
quantum fields. In this connection, the subtle body and joint active imagination provide a
physiological and symbolic experience of the interactive field.

Fundamental questions and challenges arise from this study regarding the
relationship between analyst and analysand and psyche and soma. This continues and deepens
the hoped for interplay between physics and depth psychology espoused by Jung, Pauli,
Meier, and von Franz.